2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK · 12-11-2016 02:01PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Hang on, gutting the the ACA was a significant, even core, part of what drove people to vote for him......and even before he's had a chance to look at the books, he's already backsliding on it?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a welcome reversal of his position but I also think it's shaping up to be a good example of how he is going to hugely disappoint people!

It's easy being a hurler on the ditch (which is effectively what we're all doing on this thread) quite another matter to be on the pitch.

I think one of the JFK's favourite quotes will now be resonating with Trump.....

Bullfight critics, ranked in rows
Crowd the enormous plaza full.
But only one is there who knows,
And he’s the man who fights the bull

.....it's a lot easier to be a critic than a matador

I think it was on Anderson Cooper's show last night where it was said most of the media and the critics of Trump took everything he said literally and most of the supporters didn't, so things like the access Hollywood video, or things like the Muslim ban or some of the Mexicans illegals are rapists, murderers etc registered low on the bigger scheme of things.
Being neglected and voting for the same people who are guaranteed to change nothing is what did register. Look at Wisconsin, the Democrats took it for granted and did not campaign there, and this is where you have to look at Trump and admire him, he was clever enough to go there and campaign, it showed enough people there that 'well he isn't expected to win here, but at least he cared enough to show his face around these parts'.
There are always people disappointed but I think people need to remember you may run as a candidate for maybe half the electorate, but you have to govern for all. Given how divided that country is, he will have to piss off a lot of people and compromise, so he can get things he wants done and get things done that puts people's minds at rest.

aloyisious · 12-11-2016 02:07PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Since the election is over he has also been full of praise for the Clinton's and Obama.
I don't think it is a case of Obama being a good negotiator as much as Trump being so flexible with his positions. I think Trump did what we are use to with politicians, as Pat Rabbitte said you say stuff in election campaigns to get elected.
Now he doesn't have to worry about votes he can be flexible, keep some, change other areas.

I listened to republicans on RTE ah hour ago and they were saying they voted for him as he was honest and spoke his mind, plus he was a businessman, not a politician. If Don keeps flip-flopping on issues, they're likely to be upset.

Fr Tod Umptious · 12-11-2016 02:08PM

Jawgap wrote: »

where is the evidence for that?

He is a fantastic self-promoter, but his business success is mediocre at best.....do you think someone who over-borrows to the point of bankruptcy 6 times is a good business person?

No one builds the business empire like he did without being a good negotiator.

And as for the 6 bankrupties, if a person believes that bankruptcy is a decision that yields a better return in the long run then an astute business person will go that route.

A bit like cashing out on a losing bet, do you lose some of the stake now and save something or stick it out and possibly lose the whole stake.

aloyisious · 12-11-2016 02:18PM

Re the bankruptcies, the record shows Trump Co's went that way 6 times. Does this mean that Don was a bankrupt himself? I listened to the interview he had with Sean O'Rourke during which he said he was never bankrupt, but he did buy out bankrupt Co's.

alastair · 12-11-2016 02:25PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I think it was on Anderson Cooper's show last night where it was said most of the media and the critics of Trump took everything he said literally and most of the supporters didn't, so things like the access Hollywood video, or things like the Muslim ban or some of the Mexicans illegals are rapists, murderers etc registered low on the bigger scheme of things.
Being neglected and voting for the same people who are guaranteed to change nothing is what did register. Look at Wisconsin, the Democrats took it for granted and did not campaign there, and this is where you have to look at Trump and admire him, he was clever enough to go there and campaign, it showed enough people there that 'well he isn't expected to win here, but at least he cared enough to show his face around these parts'.
There are always people disappointed but I think people need to remember you may run as a candidate for maybe half the electorate, but you have to govern for all. Given how divided that country is, he will have to piss off a lot of people and compromise, so he can get things he wants done and get things done that puts people's minds at rest.

Hillary campaigned in Wisconsin in March, April and September. Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Tim Kaine campaigned there, on behalf of the Hillary ticket, in October and November.

daithi7 · 12-11-2016 02:27PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the bankruptcies, the record shows Trump Co's went that way 6 times. Does this mean that Don was a bankrupt himself? I listened to the interview he had with Sean O'Rourke during which he said he was never bankrupt, but he did buy out bankrupt Co's.

Nope, I'm pretty sure he went very close to personal bankruptcies but never actually had to declare himself bankrupt (More's the pity now

).

Several of his business ventures floundered in chapter 11, and several others went completely bust. But he himself stayed in tact (financially) afaik.

If he had out his inheritance into a simple index s&p 500 tracker, he would now be worth significantly more than he is. So on that measure he's a below average business man.

If he runs America like he has run many of his businesses over the years, we are likely to be in for a debt fuelled, over hyped, bubble (say 3-4 years) ultimately ending in the mother of all financial crashes. (& probably an ensuing depression) Watch out world!!

aloyisious · 12-11-2016 02:28PM

This is a two question post.

Re Obama-care, or the house bill reference number it had when it was voted through by the House of Congress and The Senate, as it was voted through by the majority of politicians, doesn't it mean that they are as culpable as Obama in regard to it's content and the way the health insurance co's are screwing the paying public in increased fees.

Is it possible, given that Don & the republicans control the law-passing process, that the parts of the existing law worthy of retention can be kept, and the parts which are being "ab"used by the health insurance co's can be dropped and replaced by parts better suited to those Don & republican voters paying the charges?

The bill, as passed eventually, seems to be a cobbled-together creation of two different bills, one which failed in Congress and one which passed in the Senate, and were merged to pass muster and get signed into law by Obama. If that's correct, then a bit of good work in fixing obvious faults (the fee-charging sections) should be possible in the new overall Republican-controlled Washington, helping Don keep his word to the ordinary joe voter who put him in office.

26000 Elephants · 12-11-2016 02:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

[ ]....Trump being so flexible with his positions.

Which is code for "He will lie and say whatever he needs to get what he wants and backtrack later"

He is a consummate liar and has taken you for a fool. He won the election by promising the workers of the rust belt that he is bringing jobs back from Mexico. That is never going to happen, and he knows it.And you know it as well. Any intelligent person could have seen that, but people with little hope will hang on to anything. Thats what is so disturbing about his election.

And indeed about those who defend him in the face of such compelling evidence of his duplicity.

26000 Elephants · 12-11-2016 02:35PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I was asked if the sun was affecting the climate more than humans.

You are being deliberately obtuse at this point. You were asked about Climate Change, not climate.

Only a fool would think they were being asked if Humans effect climate more than the sun!

alastair · 12-11-2016 02:37PM

aloyisious wrote: »

This is a two question post.

Re Obama-care, or the house bill reference number it had when it was voted through by the House of Congress and The Senate, as it was voted through by the majority of politicians, doesn't it mean that they are as culpable as Obama in regard to it's content and the way the health insurance co's are screwing the paying public in increased fees.

Is it possible, given that Don & the republicans control the law-passing process, that the parts of the existing law worthy of retention can be kept, and the parts which are being "ab"used by the health insurance co's can be dropped and replaced by parts better suited to those Don & republican voters paying the charges?

I suspect that the 'terrific' alternative plan to Obamacare Trump was proposing was in fact the core existing plan with the prefix chopped off and replaced with 'Trump'. Because the obvious better option; a single payer system, isn't going to wash with the GOP base, any more under him than any other presidency.

alastair · 12-11-2016 02:51PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And I for one am not surprised.
Trump is no clown and knows how to negotiate, and knows that he will have to negotiate, and home and abroad.

But what's interesting and not surprising is that the other side are still going on about things he said in his campaign, moths ago, and using them as the yard stick, while ignoring the last few days news.

Trump doesn't need to negotiate with Obama over healthcare reform. Obama has no say once his office ends. There's no-one to negotiate with. Trump merely unilaterally ditched his campaign promise, because, like most of his commitments, they were windbaggery - of a level that would embarrass any career politician.

There will be no wall, no locking up Hillary, no ban on muslims entering the country, no mass deportations, and no returning heavy industry to the rust belt. Most of the juicy, if vague, a Trump platform is going to turn into the same mutton dressed as lamb that represents the Trump brand.

Permabear · 12-11-2016 02:58PM

This post has been deleted.

FatherTed · 12-11-2016 02:59PM

alastair wrote: »

Trump doesn't need to negotiate with Obama over healthcare reform. Obama has no say once his office ends. There's no-one to negotiate with. Trump merely unilaterally ditched his campaign promise, because, like most of his commitments, they were windbaggery - of a level that would embarrass any career politician.

There will be no wall, no locking up Hillary, no ban on muslims entering the country, no mass deportations, and no returning heavy industry to the rust belt. Most of the juicy, if vague, a Trump platform is going to turn into the same mutton dressed as lamb that represents the Trump brand.

Under Obama 2.5 million illegals have been deported so Trump will continue with this and say look at what a great job I'm doing... About refugees coming in there is already a vetting process with ICE, same thing, this will continue with little change. It's really all about what message is sold to the American public and Trump is a tremendous salesman.

RobertKK · 12-11-2016 03:00PM

alastair wrote: »

Hillary campaigned in Wisconsin in March, April and September. Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Tim Kaine campaigned there, on behalf of the Hillary ticket, in October and November.

On CNN they were saying it was a mistake that Hillary had not campaigned in the state, maybe they meant in the weeks leading up to the vote.

aloyisious · 12-11-2016 03:02PM

alastair wrote: »

I suspect that the 'terrific' alternative plan to Obamacare Trump was proposing was in fact the core existing plan with the prefix chopped off and replaced with 'Trump'. Because the obvious better option; a single payer system, isn't going to wash with the GOP base, any more under him than any other presidency.

I see what you mean by SPS. Two separate sections, the medical care provider section and the finance admin section.

Is it really a plan thought up and through by actual hands-on doctors? I can see why politicians wouldn't go for it, on a "not our brainchild" basis.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjQ7M-Wr6PQAhWmCcAKHYIQClkQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnhp.org%2Ffacts%2Fwhat-is-single-payer&usg=AFQjCNFcJUqpGqzFfFRRjE1NkZsW9AuvJw

Edit.... I don't suppose there are Republicans in the SPS group who can drop a copy to Don on the QT.

Stheno · 12-11-2016 03:03PM

New York times reporting that Trump is trying to work out if he can live part time in the white house

Fr Tod Umptious · 12-11-2016 03:04PM

alastair wrote: »

Trump doesn't need to negotiate with Obama over healthcare reform. Obama has no say once his office ends. There's no-one to negotiate with. Trump merely unilaterally ditched his campaign promise, because, like most of his commitments, they were windbaggery - of a level that would embarrass any career politician.

There will be no wall, no locking up Hillary, no ban on muslims entering the country, no mass deportations, and no returning heavy industry to the rust belt. Most of the juicy, if vague, a Trump platform is going to turn into the same mutton dressed as lamb that represents the Trump brand.

So Trump is not a racist, bigot then as people have been telling us he is all along ?

aloyisious · 12-11-2016 03:08PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So Trump is not a racist, bigot then as people have been telling us he is all along ?

In one word... transition!

RobertKK · 12-11-2016 03:12PM

alastair wrote: »

Trump doesn't need to negotiate with Obama over healthcare reform. Obama has no say once his office ends. There's no-one to negotiate with. Trump merely unilaterally ditched his campaign promise, because, like most of his commitments, they were windbaggery - of a level that would embarrass any career politician.

There will be no wall, no locking up Hillary, no ban on muslims entering the country, no mass deportations, and no returning heavy industry to the rust belt. Most of the juicy, if vague, a Trump platform is going to turn into the same mutton dressed as lamb that represents the Trump brand.

That is true, but then Trump said there are parts he likes when it comes to Obamacare.

At least some of the wall will be built, the US has spent $7 billion on fencing and other measures along the border up to 2014, and apparently the improvement in the fencing is an ongoing thing.
He said there would be no ban on Muslims during the campaign when he backtracked then but instead there would be some form of extreme vetting from countries with a terrorist problem.
I don't think he will go after Hillary either, because I don't think he is this boogie man that some people choose to believe he is.

Obama didn't give us change we can believe in, Trump likewise won't live up to his promises, but I still 100% believe Hillary Clinton was by far the more dangerous candidate, and would make a decision to go to war much quicker than Trump would, and that is why and I hope I am right, that Trump is far less the warmonger than Hillary - that is one campaign issue he needs to keep, but I think he knows the US people are fed up of war.

Jawgap · 12-11-2016 03:19PM

daithi7 wrote: »

Love it, yes indeed. And my own pet theory on this is that Trump didn't expect to get elected at all, in fact he had actually himself nicely set up to launch a right wing tv channel like Fox say, which would have far more suited his skill set imho, and he could have a fortune being that big, loud attention seeking hurler the ditch.

Now that he actually won, he is like a rabbit caught in the headlights. The full responsibilities of trying to run the western world are now dawning on him, his family and all of those around him.....

Most business people and especially owners, generally find the tedium of politics overwhelming, frustrating and very unfulfilling. That may well be Trump's fate, I just wish he had' practiced ' first, by becoming a mayor or senator, before trying to learn the skills & art of politics in the biggest bloody political job on the planet!! YIKES!!!

P.s. I also hope he doesn't get the keys of his Twitter machine mixed up with the code entering device of nuclear Armageddon, when he's having one of his rant fests with some unhappy ex beauty pageant contestant at 3 AM some morning )) funny, but frightening all the same

.....which is why I think this is spot on......

alastair · 12-11-2016 03:22PM

RobertKK wrote: »

That is true, but then Trump said there are parts he likes when it comes to Obamacare.

At least some of the wall will be built, the US has spent $7 billion on fencing and other measures along the border up to 2014, and apparently the improvement in the fencing is an ongoing thing.
He said there would be no ban on Muslims during the campaign when he backtracked then but instead there would be some form of extreme vetting from countries with a terrorist problem.
I don't think he will go after Hillary either, because I don't think he is this boogie man that some people choose to believe he is.

Obama didn't give us change we can believe in, Trump likewise won't live up to his promises, but I still 100% believe Hillary Clinton was by far the more dangerous candidate, and would make a decision to go to war much quicker than Trump would, and that is why and I hope I am right, that Trump is far less the warmonger than Hillary - that is one campaign issue he needs to keep, but I think he knows the US people are fed up of war.

Obama was constrained in what he could achieve cheers to GOP obstruction. Given all of that, and the hole that the country had to dig itself out of, he achieved quite a bit. I'm not seeing where Trump's grand schemes are impinged by anything other than their essential ludicrousness (and of course the dishonesty of the man making the pronouncements).

Glad to hear the wall has already been built by previous administrations. That's kinda handy, we could have been saved all the guff about how great the new wall was going to be.

RobertKK · 12-11-2016 03:23PM

Stheno wrote: »

New York times reporting that Trump is trying to work out if he can live part time in the white house

Yes he can.

I had a nice visit to the Texas White House last month where LBJ spent 25% of his presidency - but that was a rural location on his 2000+ acre ranch and he had an airstrip to land Air Force one - you could also get on the Presidential plane there.
His office there kind of resembled the Oval office.

But I don't think Trump can do that in the heart of Manhattan. The Secret Service and the NYPD are each wanting to get their own way.
There is a no fly zone over Trump tower that extends 3,000ft overhead and a two mile radius around. The Secret Service want to close fifth avenue to traffic, but the NYPD don't and say they are use to protecting high profile people in NY.

So I think if he wants to live part time in the White House, he can't choose to live in Trump Tower unless he really wants to piss off New Yorkers.
Traffic is already kind of restricted on 5th avenue as large trucks filled with sand are outside Trump Tower to offer some protection from car bombs.
So I don't think Manhattan is the most practicable location to live part time as President.

Jawgap · 12-11-2016 03:24PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No one builds the business empire like he did without being a good negotiator.

And as for the 6 bankrupties, if a person believes that bankruptcy is a decision that yields a better return in the long run then an astute business person will go that route.

A bit like cashing out on a losing bet, do you lose some of the stake now and save something or stick it out and possibly lose the whole stake.

Ah come on, it's not like he built it from scratch, and seriously - bankruptcy as a business model?

And btw, it's more than cashing in a losing bet......every time he did it people went unpaid which meant they suffered. It's not something that doesn't have a neutral impact.

RobertKK · 12-11-2016 03:24PM

alastair wrote: »

Obama was constrained in what he could achieve cheers to GOP obstruction. Given all of that, and the hole that the country had to dig itself out of, he achieved quite a bit. I'm not seeing where Trump's grand schemes are impinged by anything other than their essential ludicrousness.

His first two years he had Congress majority.

aloyisious · 12-11-2016 03:25PM

I shouldn't really do this here as it's a serious issue but a bit of levity de-stresses people, helps them keep focus the O/P is another human... it's a skit on the John Lewis Ad.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjTz7H7tKPQAhUMBsAKHdXpCwIQtwIIITAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVDVU_TGLJU0&usg=AFQjCNGEJKCU6Qv-nbKVWBfnR5L1VwQXjw

Manach · 12-11-2016 03:28PM

Well he demonstrated his business acumen during the election by spending half her amount and still winning,

Stheno · 12-11-2016 03:33PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes he can.

I had a nice visit to the Texas White House last month where LBJ spent 25% of his presidency - but that was a rural location on his 2000+ acre ranch and he had an airstrip to land Air Force one - you could also get on the Presidential plane there.
His office there kind of resembled the Oval office.

But I don't think Trump can do that in the heart of Manhattan. The Secret Service and the NYPD are each wanting to get their own way.
There is a no fly zone over Trump tower that extends 3,000ft overhead and a two mile radius around. The Secret Service want to close fifth avenue to traffic, but the NYPD don't and say they are use to protecting high profile people in NY.

So I think if he wants to live part time in the White House, he can't choose to live in Trump Tower unless he really wants to piss off New Yorkers.
Traffic is already kind of restricted on 5th avenue as large trucks filled with sand are outside Trump Tower to offer some protection from car bombs.
So I don't think Manhattan is the most practicable location to live part time as President.

He appears to want to split his time between the white house new York and two places in Florida!

RobertKK · 12-11-2016 03:34PM

Jawgap wrote: »

.....which is why I think this is spot on......

Only flaw is, Trump was the most intelligent when it came to a 17 man/woman fight for the GOP nomination, and intelligent enough to get the job done in a 1 v 1 fight.

I always believe this - we may think someone is less intelligent than us, but the biggest mistake is argue with a person as if they are less intelligent than us, because it could be the case the person one is arguing with is more intelligent, and the person who is left looking less intelligent is not the person one thought.
So I would not underestimate Trump, or anyone for that matter, like that person who is quoted has done.

Count Dooku · 12-11-2016 03:44PM

Stheno wrote: »

New York times reporting that Trump is trying to work out if he can live part time in the white house

Does anybody believe to them?
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/794257874306342912

aloyisious · 12-11-2016 03:46PM

Stheno wrote: »

He appears to want to split his time between the white house new York and two places in Florida!

It might be possible in at least one of the residences thought protectable by the S/Service, if the precedent set by the Kennedys is still allowed.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments